Respond to the introduction or pages 3-39 of Plato’s Phaedrus (to the end of Socrates first speech in response to Lysias). As before, include a paraphrase or quote along with your response.
The above image is the "Death of Socrates" by Jacques-Louis David (1787). Arguing untile the end.
15 comments:
Phaedrus 236 b5-c1
SOCRATES "...Do you think I would really try to say something different, of greater variety, to set beside [Lysias'] wisdom?"
Here, Socrates seems to be agreeing with Phaedrus, putting himself on the same "side" before he begins to speak. This is just after Socrates says that he liked the speech's arrangement more than its content and after saying that Lysias displayed "swagger" and showmanship. I think he does this in order to get Pheadrus to listen to him later. if Socrates was to simply criticize Lysias from the beginning, Phaedrus would get defensive and angry since he is so taken with Lysias' abilities. This could be a good strategy to resolve a disagreement because it looks for shared views first before setting out to convince or refute. I think the method with which Socrates handles this disagreement with Phaedrus is just as much a lesson in rhetorical strategy as the content of his messages and advice. In other words, to convince someone, one has to get the other to listen as well as have an ethical and well-crafted message.
A quote that I quite liked is this one from Socrates, "Woe! Alas! Wretch! How well you've discovered how to compel a lover of words to carry out your commands," in regards to Phaedrus saying, "'I swear to you by'… but by whom? By what god? Perhaps this plane tree? 'I swear by this plane tree that if you don't speak your speech in its presence, I shall never, never, never recite you a speech any author whatsoever--never even let you have word of another!'" This quote makes me think of how in control someone can be of themselves if they are compelled to speak after hearing such a comment. Is Socrates so beside himself he is compelled to say something based solely on what his pal Phaedrus said? It also makes me wonder how powerful rhetoric can be in a relationship. If Phaedrus can compel the great Socrates to say something by swearing an oath to a tree, then, surely, if used properly, people can use it to compel their significant other, or even just a friend or an acquaintance, to do something else for them.
This pair of quotes makes me think of the film Dial M for Murder. The husband of Grace Kelly, Ray Milland, set up the perfect murder so that his acquaintance would kill her and it'd look like an accident. He convinced her, after she stabbed the man who he wanted to have kill her in the back, to not call the police but wait until he got home. When he did get home, well, you'd have to see the film, but through his power of words, using some strong rhetoric, Ray's character convinced Grace Kelly's character to do nothing. His use of words was more deceitful than that used by Phaedrus, but he still used the power of rhetoric and words to influence the action of another human being.
This pair of quotes reminds me of the time I convinced my friend to read Death at 6:17 again after he had originally said it wasn't good. I got him to do so by making it seem like he didn't have to, but I would have appreciated it. He wound up reading it again, and this time he really enjoyed it. I got him to do what I wanted, and get the desired outcome, by my clever use of language and ability to get people to do what I want them to through that use of language.
Socrates - "If the man who is taken by Love belongs among the followers of Zeus, he is able to bear the burden... but those who were the attendants of Ares... when they are captured by Love and think they are being wronged in some way by the one they love, they become murderous and ready to sacrifice both themselves and their beloved." - p.33, c1-d1.
At one point it is mentioned that Zeus is the god of friendship, which is in contrast of Ares the god of war. From that, I gather the idea that Socrates is suggesting that those in love in a manner that is like friendship (or indeed IS friendship) is much more likely to be successful, as the friendship will help maintain the bond through pain and strife as well as with joy. On the opposite end, those who "side with Ares" as it were - those of a passionate, almost violent and overbearing kind of love - are willing to do whatever it takes to keep that love, even if it kills themselves and their lover.
I don't think that he is agreeing with Lysias' idea of love, but more manipulating it in a manner that it's almost more positive - in that love is not necessarily just a "friend with benefits" situation, but almost a "love as if you were friends". By that I mean that passionate love, one-sided or no, seems doomed to fail. The obsession will burn so brightly that it could turn into vicious and violent jealousy at the drop of a hat.
However, if love is taken as friendship, then the lovers are both willing and able to aid and forgive each other time and time again. The difficulties are shared, not forced upon one or another. Instead of acting as though the world is at an end if the lover makes a mistake, the "burden" is shared.
I'm not entirely certain on Socrates' ultimate view and belief on love (beyond the existence of Eros, of course) but in this instance, it seems as though he is more than willing to take what has been said by Lysias and manipulate it in a manner that may be, perhaps, more palatable.
Socrates, "Woe! Alas! Wretch! How well you've discovered how to compel a lover of words to carry out your commands," in regards to Phaedrus saying, "'I swear to you by'… but by whom? By what god? Perhaps this plane tree? 'I swear by this plane tree that if you don't speak your speech in its presence, I shall never, never, never recite you a speech any author whatsoever--never even let you have word of another!'" This is a great quote because it makes me think of his other speech one the power and control love has. Because it already seems like Phaedrus is in love with Socrates. It’s clear that Socrates is upset but the fact they are on this long walk because Socrates wouldn’t tell him about his knowledge or reveal the pleasure of giving one of his speeches unless Phaedrus would walk with him. I think it is kind of funny Socrates gave him the speech about the dangers of going blind when you become in love, and it passed right through is ears. It’s clear that Socrates has the power because he does not love Phaedrus, he loves the fact he is smarter than Phaedrus, and his knowledge of speech. Phaedrus is the lowest on the level of power because he also loves speech and the power of rhetoric. Because Phaedrus had two loves he will listen and do most things Socrates wants. Yet, if Socrates doesn’t get his way at first he will simply use a little more rhetoric of speech. A small push from one love voiced through another will all it will take to push the blind in love Phaedrus.
More evidence is on page 21 right after Socrates almost walks into the water, then begins to tell Phaedrus, “A dreadful speech it was, Phaedrus, dreadful, both the one you brought and the one you compelled me to make.” The conversation continued down this path and later on page 22 Phaedrus states, “There’s nothing, Socrates, that you could of sad that would have given me more pleasure.” And this is after he is being stepped on by and educated man, Socrates. It’s clear that Plato used some great foreshadowing with the effect of love has on a person like with the Phaedrus. The love triangle works out for all because Socrates knows speech and enjoys giving and criticizing bad ones. The way that it works out is Phaedrus loves Socrates for both person and knowledge. They both love speech so it becomes a love triangle when Socrates grants Phaedrus the pleasure of hearing his speeches.
Socrates, "Woe! Alas! Wretch! How well you've discovered how to compel a lover of words to carry out your commands," in regards to Phaedrus saying, "'I swear to you by'… but by whom? By what god? Perhaps this plane tree? 'I swear by this plane tree that if you don't speak your speech in its presence, I shall never, never, never recite you a speech any author whatsoever--never even let you have word of another!'" This is a great quote because it makes me think of his other speech one the power and control love has. Because it already seems like Phaedrus is in love with Socrates. It’s clear that Socrates is upset but the fact they are on this long walk because Socrates wouldn’t tell him about his knowledge or reveal the pleasure of giving one of his speeches unless Phaedrus would walk with him. I think it is kind of funny Socrates gave him the speech about the dangers of going blind when you become in love, and it passed right through is ears. It’s clear that Socrates has the power because he does not love Phaedrus, he loves the fact he is smarter than Phaedrus, and his knowledge of speech. Phaedrus is the lowest on the level of power because he also loves speech and the power of rhetoric. Because Phaedrus had two loves he will listen and do most things Socrates wants. Yet, if Socrates doesn’t get his way at first he will simply use a little more rhetoric of speech. A small push from one love voiced through another will all it will take to push the blind in love Phaedrus.
More evidence is on page 21 right after Socrates almost walks into the water, then begins to tell Phaedrus, “A dreadful speech it was, Phaedrus, dreadful, both the one you brought and the one you compelled me to make.” The conversation continued down this path and later on page 22 Phaedrus states, “There’s nothing, Socrates, that you could of sad that would have given me more pleasure.” And this is after he is being stepped on by and educated man, Socrates. It’s clear that Plato used some great foreshadowing with the effect of love has on a person like with the Phaedrus. The love triangle works out for all because Socrates knows speech and enjoys giving and criticizing bad ones. The way that it works out is Phaedrus loves Socrates for both person and knowledge. They both love speech so it becomes a love triangle when Socrates grants Phaedrus the pleasure of hearing his speeches.
Restraint and Excess
“Our next step is to observe that in each of us there are two kinds of thing which rule and lead us, which we follow wherever they may lead, the one an inborn desire for pleasures, the other an acquired judgement that aims at the best.”
This quote seems true enough and agreeable. Any parent who has trained a child in the latter knows quite well the difficulty of the process. Self-control or restraint does not come naturally, but is a developed trait that requires years of training; as is stated “an acquired judgement that aims at the best”.
Socrates goes on to develop his definition of these two things that rule and lead us.
“Now when judgement leads us by reason towards the best and is in control, its control over us has the name of restraint; when desire drags us irrationally towards pleasures and has established rule within us, its rule is called by the name of excess.”
This too is true and logical, and agreeable. Socrates uses examples of excess to show how desire drags us irrationally towards pleasures; the glutton and the drunkard both lack the acquired judgement that aims at the best. He goes on to explain love as an excess as well; defining love as the irrational desire that pursues beautiful bodies. Socrates develops his creditability by using the glutton and the drunkard as obvious examples of excess, then he cleverly slips in love as an excess defining it as an irrational desire for beauty. This example of excess would be more accurately represented if he called it by the name of lust. He instead establishes love as an excess to make it appear as though it is an irrational desire. This of course, brings him shame, even though it is a very believable argument.
Phaedrus quotes Lysias: "many of those in love desire a person's body before they know his ways and before they have experience of the other aspects belonging to him, so that it is unclear to them if they still want to be friends with him when the cease to desire him-". Lysias interpretation of love would contradict most peoples definition of love. Most people would view Lysias definition of love more in the context of lust, passion, or infatuation and have expectations of "knowing somebody and his ways" as a precursor to "falling" or being in love. Thus most of his persuasive abilities over an audience would be lost or at least lessened over those individuals who refuted his perspective of love. Through out his speech, I feel he unethically uses the universally accepted concepts of love to describe freindships exclusively and falsely defines love with ideas such as control, jealousy, and lust. Lysias' use of these false reasonings or definitions of love were later refuted by Socrates illustrating that even in ancient Greece that Lysias' view on love was not their generally accepted societal view. At the foundation of any speech is the idea that there is an agreed upon meaning of abstract ideas such as love and Lysias doesn't acknowledge the established definition of love before arguing or trying to redefine the meaning. This highlights the fundamental problem of Lysias ability to persuade others to his viewpoint; only those who were deceived would be persuaded by this particular speech.
Kimberly Luna
Com 301: Blog 2 Post
As of the beginning of time man, woman, and the devil disguised as a serpent, may have well used dissoi and logoi as way to unethically, as some may say, duped another to side with them. This may have emerged by getting them to ponder something originally against their own personal beliefs, or get them to carry out something that they didn’t originally want to do. Manipulation with a beautiful play on words has always existed and he/she with the preeminent speech usually triumphed, whether or not ethos was at play. So, what distinguishes a good speech from that of a bad speech? That would be knowledge my dear Watson. From knowledge one can derive manipulation to make the words represent what he/she wants them to represent, persuading the listener to feel the emotion(s) that the talented orator wants them to experience; which in turn makes one a good rhetorical orator – good ole lawyer talk.
This leads me to Plato’s well admired “Phaedrus”. The quote that I have chosen to represent is “How admirable of Lysias! I only wish he would write that it should be to a poor man rather than a rich one, and an older rather than a younger man, and all the other things which belong to me and to most of us; then his speeches would be urbane, and for the general good (p. 4c10-d5).”
In this passage Socrates is being a bit condescending with Phaedrus in regrards to Lysias’ speech about “favours should be granted to a man who is not in love rather to one who is (p. 3c5).”
It appears to me that Lysias knew how to use speech to get others to consider the plausible and possibly perform “favours”. Socrates was wise in saying that it should be a poor man as opposed to a rich, for a poor man could not afford such “favours”. Socrates further patronizes Lysias’ speech by saying that these “favours” should be granted to an old man as opposed to a young man, since a young man in his prime is “beautiful” and an old man may have had his “beauty” withered over time. I really prefer the part where Socrates sates that if this granting of “favours” was in fact for “the general good” then Lysias’ speech would then be more sophisticated and ethical.
It appears that the methodology used by Socrates was sine qua non. In other words, Socrates’ wisdom held essential rhetorical ingredients in persuading Phaedrus to think less, even doubt the existence of truth, he once believed about Lysias’ speech. Socrates came out reaping the benefits of occupying a good Orator’s power. After Socrates methodically turned Lysias’ speech to a different meaning it appeared as though Phaedrus may have thought less about the ethos used by Lysias.
Both Socrates and Phaedrus are in love with the artful use of logoi, but both have diverse conviction on the interpretation and definitions of terminology. Where “Phaedrus is interested in the speeches, Socrates is most interested in talk of a philosophical nature (p. xiv).” This difference in interpretations allowed Socrates to further per sway Phaedrus to think differently of Lysias.
Kimberly Luna
Com 301: Blog 2 Post
As of the beginning of time man, woman, and the devil disguised as a serpent, may have well used dissoi and logoi as way to unethically, as some may say, duped another to side with them. This may have emerged by getting them to ponder something originally against their own personal beliefs, or get them to carry out something that they didn’t originally want to do. Manipulation with a beautiful play on words has always existed and he/she with the preeminent speech usually triumphed, whether or not ethos was at play. So, what distinguishes a good speech from that of a bad speech? That would be knowledge my dear Watson. From knowledge one can derive manipulation to make the words represent what he/she wants them to represent, persuading the listener to feel the emotion(s) that the talented orator wants them to experience; which in turn makes one a good rhetorical orator – good ole lawyer talk.
This leads me to Plato’s well admired “Phaedrus”. The quote that I have chosen to represent is “How admirable of Lysias! I only wish he would write that it should be to a poor man rather than a rich one, and an older rather than a younger man, and all the other things which belong to me and to most of us; then his speeches would be urbane, and for the general good (p. 4c10-d5).”
In this passage Socrates is being a bit condescending with Phaedrus in regrards to Lysias’ speech about “favours should be granted to a man who is not in love rather to one who is (p. 3c5).”
It appears to me that Lysias knew how to use speech to get others to consider the plausible and possibly perform “favours”. Socrates was wise in saying that it should be a poor man as opposed to a rich, for a poor man could not afford such “favours”. Socrates further patronizes Lysias’ speech by saying that these “favours” should be granted to an old man as opposed to a young man, since a young man in his prime is “beautiful” and an old man may have had his “beauty” withered over time. I really prefer the part where Socrates sates that if this granting of “favours” was in fact for “the general good” then Lysias’ speech would then be more sophisticated and ethical.
It appears that the methodology used by Socrates was sine qua non. In other words, Socrates’ wisdom held essential rhetorical ingredients in persuading Phaedrus to think less, even doubt the existence of truth, he once believed about Lysias’ speech. Socrates came out reaping the benefits of occupying a good Orator’s power. After Socrates methodically turned Lysias’ speech to a different meaning it appeared as though Phaedrus may have thought less about the ethos used by Lysias.
Both Socrates and Phaedrus are in love with the artful use of logoi, but both have diverse conviction on the interpretation and definitions of terminology. Where “Phaedrus is interested in the speeches, Socrates is most interested in talk of a philosophical nature (p. xiv).” This difference in interpretations allowed Socrates to further per sway Phaedrus to think differently of Lysias.
Socrates says “When I was about to cross the river, my good man, I had that supernatural experience, the sign that I am accustomed to having –on each occasion, you understand, it holds me back from whatever I am about to do- and I seemed to hear a kind of voice from the very spot, forbidding me to leave until I made expiation, because I have committed an offence against what belongs to the gods.” I really like this quote the supernatural part is what I like most. I believe that everyone has had some kind of super natural experience in their lives. He is claiming that he has them quite often. It is almost as though he has a supernatural conscious. And his conscious is telling him that he is wrong about the speech and should reveal this to Phaedrus. I can relate because, I have had a supernatural experience in my life. However, the real thing that happened is that Socrates feels guilty because his conscious is telling him he has committed an offence. I think of this like, I was given twenty dollars too much change back at the store. I could have walked out with the money but, I didn’t because, I know right from wrong. I gave the money back because, I am a good person. Socrates called him back because, he is a good person. He truly believes that love is not what Lysias portrays it to be. And so strongly that he can feel it in his spirit.
Phaedrus p. 23, d5
SCOCRATES "Then out of shame for what this man would think, and out of fear of Love himself, I for my part am anxious to wash away the bitter taste, as it were, of the things we have heard said, with a wholesome speech; and I advise Lysias too to put in writing as quickly as possible that one should grant favours to a lover rather than to one not in love, in return for favours received."
If a good person was in love with another good person they wouldn't understand that a lover would start a fight because of small things and be jealous towards their beloved. They could not comprehend because they gave their love. They cared more for their partners than themselves. He compares love as to be mad or crazy. If you were not in love you would be sane and just wanting things for yourself. Being crazy is usually bad. But the greatest gift is being in love and giving with no expectation of reward. He wants to wash away the thought of granting favors to a non lover even though it doesn't make sense in a rational line of thinking. What he is basically trying to do is to describe the abstract meaning of the word love because love is not rational or logical. It is a description of an emotion. He finds it distasteful to grant rewards to a person who is not in love instead of a person that they love. He goes on to say that if you give love for money or reward good people don't understand it. If you're in love you could be jealous or petty where if you aren't in love you know what you are getting. The story leaned to argue more favorably to those not in love but greater good would come from giving to love.
Holly Sharp
10/16/10
Professor Schnackenberg
Phaedrus
The beginning pages of Phaedrus had an element of the biblical "Proverbs." I felt like there was a cynicism to the advice that was being given, however, I also felt that there was an implication that the person who was giving the advise felt more intelligent than the audience. (Pg. 10, b3) "if they are successful, love compels them to praise even things which ought not to cause pleasure at all; so that it is much more fitting for their loved ones to pity them than to want to emulate them..."
I really liked this quote because I felt like it summed up exactly how rhetoric works as well as what the pages were about. The speaker pairs words with ideas. In reference to the above quote, the idea of love is paired with the word pity. The idea of a loveless, collaborative relationship is paired with the word emulate.
This argument gives power to the idea that love is impossible. Those who love are subject to behaving irrational at any given moment. Those who are in a loveless relationship are able to maintain maturity and not overreact about simple, daily irritants.
Phaedrus argues that those who love are afflicted. The affliction causes them to behave in unmanageable ways. He argues that if people can be pure of mind and absolve themselves of the desire to be in love then they can escape the heartache that love is sure to bring. Phaedrus makes it very clear that he favors the side of friends over lovers.
Socrates is of a different mind. He starts by trying to develop mutual ground. (Pg. 15, c6)"So let us, you and I, avoid having happen to us what we find fault with in others..." Socrates wants to develop the "friendship" before he tries to convince Phaedrus of his point of view. His use of rhetoric is more manipulative than Phaedrus. Phaedrus uses words to beautify his opinions and make them desirable to his listeners.
Socrates uses emotion. He wants to establish trust with his listeners before he attempts to persuade them.
I think this shows how powerful rhetoric can be and what a tool it has become in everyday life. Rhetoric is also subject to the user.
I like the quote, "All is immortal. For that which is always in movement is immortal; that which moves something else, and is moved by something else, in ceasing from movement ceases from living. So only that which moves itself, because it does not abandon itself, never stops moving. To me this means that if one had no cares left, he would just give up and be nothing, but as long as he tries to help himself, he will never stop". The first principle can relate to our ancestors. "For all that comes into being must come into being from a first principle, but a first principle itself cannot come into being from anything, it would not do so from a first principle. Since it is something that does not come into being, it must also be something which does not perish". Is SOCRATES referring to a God that has given man life?
I like the quote, "All is immortal. For that which is always in movement is immortal; that which moves something else, and is moved by something else, in ceasing from movement ceases from living. So only that which moves itself, because it does not abandon itself, never stops moving. To me this means that if one had no cares left, he would just give up and be nothing, but as long as he tries to help himself, he will never stop". The first principle can relate to our ancestors. "For all that comes into being must come into being from a first principle, but a first principle itself cannot come into being from anything, it would not do so from a first principle. Since it is something that does not come into being, it must also be something which does not perish". Is SOCRATES referring to a God that has given man life?
Post Discussion 2
Com-301 Rhetorical Theory and Application
Instructor: Matt Schnackenberg
By: Michael L Martin
The quote I like is from page 23 a5 “That would be rightly said if it were a simple truth that madness is a bad thing; but as it is, the greatest of goods come to us through madness, provided that it is bestowed by a divine gift.”
The greatest of goods come to us through madness, is a very interesting thought because the meaning of that phrase could be taken different ways depending upon the individual reading that passage. For me, I think it means that through a certain kind of madness clarity can be found. That clarity can be dialed into a single thought that could change the way we perceive things.
Many of the great scholars were thought to be mad at one point in time; maybe that is because they see the world in a different way. This different way of think could be considered to be madness.
Post a Comment